Bad Ethics of NextfTheology What Shall We Do About the Duplicity and Dishonesty of Some Who Deal with Holy Things? By JOHN ROA CH STRATON , D. D., P a sto r C alvary B aptist C hurch, New Y ork
fair and thoughtful mind m fail to be impressed by e tendency to evasion and ren duplicity which so fre
‘bodily resu rrection ,’ ‘personal, visible I* retu rn ,’ ‘evangelization of th e world,’ — are th e very battle-ground of two world views, one of which— and no doubt the trad itio n al one— the unso phisticated donor holds. Men of th e modern m ind subscribe to th e same words as do men of th e trad itional mind, bu t th e two types of m ind in vest th e words w ith meanings th a t are so far ap art, as to be almost incom m ensurable.” Here, then, is a frank adm ission th a t men representing modernism are ready to subscribe to trad ition al term s, but invest them , in th e ir own minds, w ith a meaning th a t has no more kinship to dictionary definitions and trad ition al accepted beliefs, th a n Mrs. Eddy’s va- porings have to tru e science or Scrip ture. Subtle Deceit Professor Kirsopp Lake, in his in troduction to “ Painted Windows,” th a t suggestive book by th e highly talen ted Englishman, “A gentlem an w ith a Duster,” says this: “ Over against th is is the rig h t wing of Liberals. There is probably little difference in th e m a tte r of private opin- j ion between them and th e left wing, bu t they are more concerned w ith safe guarding th e unity of th e Church. They endeavor to do th is by using th e old phraseology w ith a new meaning, so th a t, for instance, members of th is p arty feel justified in stating th a t they accept th e creed, though they do not believe in it in th e sense which was originally intended. This is technically called ‘rein terp reting ,’ and by a suf- ficient am ount of ‘rein terp retin g ’ all th e articles of th e creed (or indeed anything else), can be given w hatever
quently iappears in th e rank s of th e new theologians and the religious rad icals. The leaders in th is new school of though t are making an astu te and energetic effort to replace th e old faith w ith th e ir new theories. They realize th a t as leaders they are ahead of the g reat mass of th e people, and they seem to be willing to practice a subtle form of deceit by th e use of term s w ith a double meaning, in th e effort to hold on to money, place, and position, while they underm ine th e Christian faith which has been accepted in th e past, and is still accepted by th e vast ma jo rity of church people. We had, for example, in our New York papers recently a group of in terviews from well-known m inisters, in which they openly championed the th eatre, th e dance, etc., and frank ly adm itted th a t they had accepted Dar winism, and th a t they no longer be lieved in th e inspiration of th e Scrip tures, except, as they pu t it, in a “tech nical sense.” T h at meant, of course, th a t they did not believe it a t all, but simply used th e old-fashioned term s “ technically” to get by on. The term “ technically” was a palliative w ith which to ease th e ir consciences over th e ir m ental reservations about the old faith. The ed ito r of a religious paper, in discussing th e question of creedal statem ents, w ith which our brotherhood is now concerned, said this: “The term s used— ‘inspiration and au tho rity of th e Scriptures,’ ‘deity of Jesus,’ ‘incarn ation ,’ ‘atoning d eath ,’
,
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker